turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Anthimos III
I think Anthimos was more interested in worshipping himself than Phos. Well Avtokrators needed the Patriarch to perform their coronation ceremony; and Patriarchs could be coerced into doing so, but surely there were limits and they would reject someone who didn't follow Phos. And furthermore, the Videssians, with their endless theological quibbles within Phos worship, would certainly never tolerate an infidel on the throne. Still, Anthimos was to piety as McGill is to worthwhile actions. Turtle Fan 16:37, April 16, 2010 (UTC) :So at least on paper, then, Anthimos was a Phos worshipper? TR 16:48, April 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I suppose he was publicly. ::On a distantly related note, actually, I've heard that one of the many objections to Charles taking the throne upon Elizabeth's death is that his Christian faith is believed to be inadequate for the head of the Church of England. Turtle Fan 17:04, April 16, 2010 (UTC) :::I had a quick "but James succeeded Elizabeth" moment before I realized what you were saying. ::::And Charles succeeded James. I guess the second time around they figured they'd cut out the middleman. Turtle Fan 18:45, April 16, 2010 (UTC) :::What is the basis for this position? It's not like there haven't been divorced heads of the Church, or adulterers. My understanding is that Charles is quite good at raising money for third world countries and other charitable acts. That sounds Christian to me. And isn't the monarch as much a figurehead in the Church as s/he is in the government? Doesn't the Archbishop of Canterbury really do the heavy lifting? TR 17:24, April 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::His divorce and adultery aren't at issue; he was just following Henry VIII's example, after all. I have no knowledge as to whether he's philanthropic but I'd assume he is. I just remember a few snatches of stories here and there but the gist of it is that he's expressed openness to belief in reincarnation and skepticism about resurrection. If a person had to name one thing that a Christian must believe in to be considered as such, resurrection would surely be it. ::::I too understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury leads the church with even less regal interference than the Prime Minister leads the state, but like the PM, he needs to keep up appearances in his relationship with the monarch and he needs the monarch to do the same for him. I can't imagine Charles going out of his way to scandalize Canterbury actively, but the taint remains. ::::All of this is no concern to me. My objection to Charles succeeding--not that it's any of my business--is that he's something of a tool. Turtle Fan 18:45, April 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::I do have the sense that more people are excited about the eventual William V. I certainly agree that Charles is much too prone to being ridiculous, and I think people are worried about Charles III pulling an Edward VIII so he can follow his true dreams of being a tampon. TR 18:52, April 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::William offers much more to get excited about. Were I a Commonwealther I'd certainly prefer him, and I suspect all these "Charles can't succeed for this reason and that" theories that keep cropping up are an expression of that preference, widely held. This might be my republicanism talking but if the UK and Commonwealth countries are democratic, the royalty should respect such a strong preference for a king who's not next in line. Turtle Fan 21:02, April 16, 2010 (UTC)